reject it, they were, of course, at liberty to amend it. When the Bill came back, he was not aware there was any surprise. He believed the amendments were printed; there was a discussion on them, and though their Lordships did not approve of the amendments, yet they did not think them so objectionable as to reject them. He had stated that he believed it was a loss of time to attempt to disturb that adjustment; but, having heard from so many of their Lordships, especially from those who had property in Ireland, the strong opinion entertained that this very slight alteration of the Incumbered Estates Act should be adopted; having himself admitted the inconvenience which attended the appointment of receivers in many cases in Ireland, he did not feel himself called upon, having made no Motion, to divide against the Bill; and he was willing that it should go down to the House of Commons, there to be discussed, in conjunction with other measures, for the appointment of receivers, and that the whole question should be considered.

lessened his opinion in favour of that Bill. | mons would consent to exempt all the esBut it had come into operation at a most tates on which the incumbrances did not unfavourable time. He believed that if amount to one-half. Being at liberty to the Act had passed three or four years ago, its operations would have been highly beneficial; but coming into operation last year, when land in all parts of the united kingdom, but especially in Ireland, was depreciated in value, it was not so beneficial. He should oppose any measure for the repeal of that Act. But he had heard, with an astonishment he could not express, the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. He it was who appointed a Committee of their Lordships' House to investigate this subject. They went through a careful inquiry, and yet, in the various enactments that were proposed, it never for one moment suggested itself to the mind of the noble Lord to propose any such provision as that which it was the intention of his noble Friend now to enact. It was well known that the noble Lord opposite introduced a clause which was considered by many to be a great improvement of the Bill, that estates should not be sold unless they were incumbered to half their gross value. The other House altered it to the net value. A compromise was come to between the Government and the other House, and this extraordinary amendment was agreed to, of which none of their Lordships had any idea, that if any estate was put into the hands of a receiver, it should not be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. However, if Her Majesty's Ministers would assure him that the Bill which the noble President of the Council said the other night was likely to be brought into the House of Commons should contain a provision for the removal of this anomaly, he should at once advise his noble Friend to withdraw this Bill; but if they would not give that assurance, he should give his conscientious support to this Bill.

The EARL of CARLISLE said, he had certainly thought it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the adjustment that took place last Session respecting the amendments of the Incumbered Estates Bill; and bearing in mind the circumstances of that adjustment, he certainly did think it would be a loss of time for the Legislature to attempt to disturb it. When he mentioned that adjustment, he could not admit that there was any breach of contract; there was no contract, there could have been none. After the Bill left their Lordships' House, it was well known it was a matter of doubt whether the Com

The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH was much gratified by the concession the noble Lord had made. He held in his hand a notice given to the tenants of an estate, from which it appeared the commissioners had taken upon themselves to set aside the law, and stated their intention to proceed to the sale of an estate on a notice of one month, although the law for the protection of individuals required six. The noble Marquess then read the notice in question, which was dated the 1st of June, which directed the tenants to pay up their rents and to take out renewals of their respective leases on or before the 1st of July next, and in default of their so doing the commissioners would proceed to sell. Was that confiscation or was it not? Here were commissioners doing that in one month which the law required should be done in six months, and yet they were upheld by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl (he Earl of Wicklow) thought that his speech was against the Incumbered Estates Act, and that he wished it repealed. He had no such intention. But the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) had described what that Act was, that it gave the commissioners power to determine whether such or such a man should be sold up or not, that was to say, they were judge and

jury, and had power given them to masti- | isfy no doubt the demands of the incumcate the landlords, and thus fill their political stomachs.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE, concurring entirely in the propriety of the very considerate course of his noble Friend (the Earl of Carlisle), wished at the same time to have it distinctly understood he did not in the least admit that the slightest imputation rested on the Incumbered Estates Commissioners. The last allegations made by the noble Marquess who had just spoken were not in the slightest degree connected with the Bill, and contained a grave charge against the commissioners, which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) believed to be utterly unfounded. If the Bill of the noble Marquess in any way conveyed that charge, he would have divided against it; but be'cause it did not necessarily imply any such charge, and because he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) admitted it might be expedient that the whole of the subject should be reviewed and compared together-that subject being the propriety of selling an estate where a receiver was appointed, and where the incumbrances amounted to one-half the value-he had no objection to the Bill being sent to the other House.

brancers, but they would leave the owner almost without a shilling. When these points were urged last year, it was stated that the discretion of the commissioners would be sufficient to guide the pricesthat it was not to be supposed they would permit estates to be brought forward in such a way as to glut the market, or to allow the estates to to be sold for anything below a fair and reasonable amount of purchase money. Now, what was a fair and reasonable amount of purchase money? Would any of their Lordships say that ten, eight, seven, or even, as in one case, onc and a half year's rent would be a fair and reasonable amount of purchase money for their estates? He wished, therefore, to say, without imputing any corrupt motive, that the commissioners had not exercised that discretion which last year they were led to expect from them; and as this was a serious matter, he wished to know from Her Majesty's Government whether they would have any objection to lay upon the tahle of the House an account of the different estates sold, the estimate of their annual income, together with the actual amount of such income, and the number LORD STANLEY said, it was true that of years' rental at which each estate had this Bill contained no imputation upon the been sold. He believed if that paper were conduct of the commissioners, though it produced it would show that the average did propose that, in a certain degree, the purchase money of all the estates-he did discretion of the commissioners should be not speak of chief rents, such as one of limited. He had risen to say, that he 1501. charged upon an estate of 8,000l. a hoped the noble Marquess would not con- year, the security for the payment of which sider the House precluded, by adopting was as good as it could be in any quarter the principle of this Bill, from considering of the world, and which he was aware had the expediency of a still further limitation sold, not, as might have been expected, for of the powers of the commissioners. Last 30 years, but for 18, 20, and in some inyear, when the Bill was under considera- stances for 22 years' purchase. He was tion, they had two objects to attend to speaking only of freehold estates, and with first, as to the circumstances which ought respect to them, he believed it would be found to bring an estate under the operation of that they had been sold for 10 or 12 years' the Act; and, next, whether it was expedi- purchase of the actual annual rent. He ent to limit the discretion of the commis- would ask their Lordships with what feelsioners with regard to the price which ings they would view the provisions of a should be set upon estates. It was clear Bill which, because one-fifth of their prothat the object of the Bill was, in the first perty was under mortgage, should force place, to satisfy the claims of the creditor; the whole of their estates into the market, and next that the proprietor should be in and sell them at 10 years' purchase. He the same condition as nearly as possible as asked for the papers he had alluded to, in if the claims of his creditors were dis-order to see if the commissioners had exercharged in the ordinary manner, for if that were not done, they would be inflicting a grievous wrong upon the party. If, for instance, they were to sell an estate worth 2,000l. a year, on which there was an incumbrance of 10,000l., at the rate of ten or twelve years' purchase, they would sat

cised a proper discretion in the matter; and if it should be proved that they had sold various estates at from eight to ten years' purchase, then it would be the duty of Parliament, unless indeed they had given in their sanction to the principle of confiscation-it would be the bounden duty

they ought to adhere to the long-recognised six were those of persons interested in the practice of that House; and if there were colony; while, on the other hand, it was to one point on which that practice was clear be recollected that there had not been a and certain, it was in not hearing counsel single petition against the Bill from New on general measures unless in cases where South Wales, though it was notorious to the particular interests of the petitioners every one in the colony that the Bill had were directly involved. In all the cases been presented and would be passed to which the noble and learned Lord had through Parliament this year. Notwithreferred, the facts were so. In fact, in standing this, there had not been a single the case to which the noble and learn- petition from the colony praying that the ed Lord had alluded, in which he had Bill might be altered in any particular, or been himself heard as counsel, he admitted that it should not pass; but, on the conthat he had been cautioned by Lord Eldon trary, several petitions had arrived from to confine himself to the point of the al- Port Phillip, praying that the Bill might leged injury done to the private interests be passed as speedily as possible. With of his clients; and yet, as he told them, regard to the other signatures to this petieven with this caution he had gone on for tion, many of them were, he believed, hours to declaim on every possible subject those of most respectable individuals; but -a description which he (Earl Grey) had with the exception of three or four, they no doubt was perfectly accurate. A very had no property in the colony; and altoimportant debate occurred in 1825, when gether the petition contained only someLord Carnarvon presented a petition from where about twenty signatures. To take Members of the Roman Catholic Associa- the contrary view, he held in his hand antion, praying to be heard by counsel at the other petition that had been presented to bar of their Lordships' House against the their Lordships' House in favour of the Bill for the Suppression of Illegal Socie- Bill, and that contained the names of alties, by which their association was sought most every great house trading with the to be suppressed. Lord Liverpool op- colonies in the City, and so numerously posed the Motion; and one whose name he signed as to cover four closely written (Earl Grey) had the honour to bear, as well pages. With regard to the question of as others, strongly supported it; but on all hearing Mr. Scott, the agent for one of sides the general rule was admitted and these colonies, there could be no doubt as adhered to, that counsel should not be to the propriety of letting him be heard at heard unless the interests of the individuals the bar, provided the Legislative Council petitioning were directly affected. That had thought fit to instruct him to oppose rule did not, however, at all apply in the the Bill. Accordingly, as soon as Mr. present case. In the Bill before their Scott's petition had been presented, he Lordships, not one single alteration was thought it right to have an application made in the existing laws that had not made to him, requesting that he would be been petitioned for by the colonists them- good enough to inform him (Earl Grey) selves. It retained all the laws now in whether he had received instructions from force, without making any alteration in the Legislative Council to urge any opposithem whatever, except with regard to tion to the Bill, or to suggest alterations points that had been repeatedly petitioned in it; and stating that if he had any alterafor by the colonists. Now, in the case of tions to suggest, they would not fail to rethe Canadian Bill, where Mr. Roebuck had ceive the immediate and best attention of been heard as counsel, it should be recol- Her Majesty's Government. The reply to lected that the facts were entirely differ- that letter was that the petition contained ent. It was a Bill for the extinction of the grounds on which he prayed to be the Canadian constitution; and, besides, heard against the Bill. [The noble Earl it was calculated to effect material and here read the letters.] On reading the direct injury to the inhabitants of Quebec. petition he found, however, that it conIt might be said that the Australian colo- tained no statement of the petitioner havnists had asked for more than this Billing received any instructions whatever from contained; but that could not alter his the Legislative Council to make this appliargument; because all points not touched cation; and he felt, therefore, justified in upon by the Bill were left as they at pre-treating the application as an entirely unsent stood. The small number of signatures to this petition was also a matter that could not be overlooked. Only five or

authorised act on the part of Mr. Scott, and, he would add, one which he was sure would not meet the approbation of his con

informed that the petition which the noble Earl had presented did not contain the signature of one single landed proprietor in the colony

EARL GREY: That is quite a mistake.

stituents. So far had their Lordships' House carried this rule, of not hearing persons by counsel, unless they happened to be directly and personally interested as individuals in the measure, that in 1833, on the question of the abolition of negro LORD MONTEAGLE said, he stated slavery, their Lordships' House actually what had been represented to him from refused an application from the West good authority. On the other hand, the India planters and merchants to be heard petition now under their Lordships' conby counsel at their Lordships' bar. It was sideration contained the signatures of sevetrue that in the case of the Municipal Re-ral most respectable landed proprietors in form Bill counsel were heard; but then it the colony, the first name to it being that was alone because the report of the Com- of Mr. Lowe, an Australian landowner, missioners of Municipal Inquiry, on which and late a member of the colonial legisthe Bill was founded, contained allegations lature, who had just arrived in this counof very grave charges against particular try, and who was distinguished for his parties connected with some of the former station, his influence, and his abilities. corporations. On the contrary, every With regard to the objection raised against change made by the present Bill was hearing Mr. Scott at the bar, he would asked for by the colonists, or else would remind their Lordships, that this was no not come into effect until the colony party question, and he appealed to them formally applied to have them enforced. in their judicial capacity to consider what Besides, he believed that such an applica- had been their previous practice. Mr. Scott tion was very seldom made to their Lord- was agent for the colony, Mr. Burge; as ships, except in cases where a similar ap- agent for Jamaica, had been heard; Mr. plication had been made to the other House Roebuck, as agent for one branch of the of Parliament also. On these grounds he Canadian Parliament had been heard. should feel bound to resist the Motion of Why was Mr. Scott to be rejected? But the noble and learned Lord. it was denied that Mr. Scott had not LORD MONTEAGLE said, he would been instructed to petition. How could meet the noble Earl on his own ground, he? The Bill before the House was not and would undertake to show that, on the the Bill made known in Australia. How, principles of justice and policy, the peti- then, could the Australians instruct Mr. tioners had a right to be heard against Scott to petition against it? The Bill this Bill. He regretted, indeed, that the of the last Session, which was the Colonial Secretary was not himself the only Bill of which the inhabitants of the party to present this petition, and he still Antipodes could be forewarned, differmore deeply regretted, that, when the peti- ed essentially from the present. His tion was presented, his noble Friend should noble Friend at the head of the Governbe the party to throw obstacles in the way ment had last year pledged himself to inof a compliance with its prayer. It should troduce clauses that would bring under be recollected that this Bill affected the colonial administration the whole of the value of every acre of land in Australia; land revenues of the colonies. There was each landed proprietor had, therefore, the no single point on which the colonists right to petition, which the noble Earl felt so deeply interested as that of getcould not but hold to be essential to free- ting the control of the land revenues into dom. The noble Earl had compared the their own hands. Even in the present the two petitions, that which he had pre- year, in the memorable speech of his noble sented in favour of the Bill, and that Friend (Lord J. Russell) made on the 8th which was now under discussion. That of February, it was distinctly promised comparison, even if it had been justly that this privilege would be granted to the made, furnished no argument whatever colonists. In that speech his noble Friend against the present Motion, because if had stated, "To the general assembly we the one petition had 1,000 signatures, propose to refer the question so important and the other was the petition of a sin- to the colonies, the price of the waste gle individual, he having a locus standi lands." His noble Friend (Earl Grey) before the House, their Lordships were had not even hinted why this intention bound to give to the latter equal consider- was abandoned. It was but a few weeks ation with the first, so far as permitting ago this amended Bill was introduced, his petition to be heard. He had been withholding from the colonists those pro